Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Ethical food consumption

daneejela
daneejela Posts: 461 Member
edited January 2020 in Debate Club
I would like to open a discussion about ethical eating, but if possible I would like to extend it beyond vegan vs no vegan debates since it always ends up in a very heated debate with two separate clans.
I think we all can make our eating a bit more ethical and environmental friendly, whatever our views are.

I, personally am not a vegan, nor vegetarian (at least at the moment I am writing this), but I still think that there is a huge difference we can make even while eating meat.

Killing is cruel, but in my views, that kind of cruelty is natural (however I dislike the fact). On the other side, keeping animals in industrial environments, completely separated from anything natural or living is cruel beyond words (IMO).
We are all doomed to die as we are all part of that natural feeding cycle, but even the wildest beasts don't take their prey's life completely.

So, here are my views on ethical eating, and what I try to avoid:

- eating more than I need to be alive and healthy (obviously, I am not very good at this since I am here, but I am striving to find that moderation in everyday consumption of pretty much anything)

- buying meat, eggs, and dairy that are raised in industrial environments - I try to find local free-range farms where those animals are raised close to their natural habitat. Although I hate hunting as a sport, from the meat consumption perspective, I think that's by far the most ethical way to find meat.

- buying veggies that are not grown in a very artificial way with lots of chemistry that kills everything around

- having a lot of food waste - I am trying to learn more recipes, tips & tricks to be able to use most of the food I have available and to have the least waste possible.

- avoiding something just because it's not labeled non-vegan (or any similar label) - for example, many people don't want to use wool for the ethical reasons, and yet, in my country, unused wool is a pretty big environmental problem. Sheep get shaved every summer because it's too hot for them otherwise. A huge amount of wool is being dumped into the environment and is very slow at decomposing. (not food-related example, but I wanted to share)

I am not very good at any of this, and I think I am still doing baby steps, but this is something I would like to incorporate in my habits.

What does ethical eating mean for you? Do you do any daily efforts in order to achieve it?

Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to be better at it?

«134

Replies

  • jenncornelsen
    jenncornelsen Posts: 969 Member
    Im slowly switching to organic and free range meat, along with more natural cleaners and bodycare products. Its for sure more expensive,especially with a family. But i will continue to switch where i can and hopefully one day I'm switched over 100%
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Problem is that there's no way to provide the amount of meat to feed everyone without industrial farms and also have it at a price that is generally affordable.

    Also, if we're talking about fitness, protein requirements are higher than the RDA.

    I am not sure if this is the case...at least not in my part of the world...there are so many abandoned lands that nobody cares for and pasture that is being trimmed with trimming machines. It's almost impossible to see a cow, a pig or a sheep outside in the countryside.

    If all those land would be utilized, I would probably share your opinion, right now it sounds too me like one of those widely spread beliefs that are hard to prove/disprove    .

    Regarding proteins...I don't have enough knowledge to argue about how much proteins we need, but a look into the historical consumption of proteins raises a question if we maybe are going overboard with proteins lately.
    (I am not talking about bodybuilders, but an average person with average physical activity)

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, the land has to have terrain suitable for livestock, have proper grasses for them to eat, and the soil has to have the correct mineral content or the animals will get sick, die or not grow to a reasonable size.

    My understanding is that even when land is well-suited, you're often requiring outside inputs to fully support the animals. It's rarely as simple as "put animals on the land, harvest meat in eighteen or so months."

    Yes, you typically still have to have feed, hay, and sometimes mineral blocks but they can get quite a bit of their nutrition from the land if it has the proper nutrients.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,496 Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Problem is that there's no way to provide the amount of meat to feed everyone without industrial farms and also have it at a price that is generally affordable.

    Also, if we're talking about fitness, protein requirements are higher than the RDA.

    I am not sure if this is the case...at least not in my part of the world...there are so many abandoned lands that nobody cares for and pasture that is being trimmed with trimming machines. It's almost impossible to see a cow, a pig or a sheep outside in the countryside.

    If all those land would be utilized, I would probably share your opinion, right now it sounds too me like one of those widely spread beliefs that are hard to prove/disprove    .

    Regarding proteins...I don't have enough knowledge to argue about how much proteins we need, but a look into the historical consumption of proteins raises a question if we maybe are going overboard with proteins lately.
    (I am not talking about bodybuilders, but an average person with average physical activity)

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, the land has to have terrain suitable for livestock, have proper grasses for them to eat, and the soil has to have the correct mineral content or the animals will get sick, die or not grow to a reasonable size.

    Not to mention a water source for cattle and appreciate rainfall amounts for crops.
  • liftingbro
    liftingbro Posts: 2,029 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Problem is that there's no way to provide the amount of meat to feed everyone without industrial farms and also have it at a price that is generally affordable.

    Also, if we're talking about fitness, protein requirements are higher than the RDA.

    I am not sure if this is the case...at least not in my part of the world...there are so many abandoned lands that nobody cares for and pasture that is being trimmed with trimming machines. It's almost impossible to see a cow, a pig or a sheep outside in the countryside.

    If all those land would be utilized, I would probably share your opinion, right now it sounds too me like one of those widely spread beliefs that are hard to prove/disprove    .

    Regarding proteins...I don't have enough knowledge to argue about how much proteins we need, but a look into the historical consumption of proteins raises a question if we maybe are going overboard with proteins lately.
    (I am not talking about bodybuilders, but an average person with average physical activity)

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, the land has to have terrain suitable for livestock, have proper grasses for them to eat, and the soil has to have the correct mineral content or the animals will get sick, die or not grow to a reasonable size.

    Not to mention a water source for cattle and appreciate rainfall amounts for crops.

    Yes, there is a reason the Midwest down to Texas in the US produces most of the meat and dairy supply, the land is best suited for cattle, but that's with modern farming. Even less of that land would be suitable for more "sustainable" farming. But the Midwest has great soil, flat land, plenty of lakes/rivers, and moderate rainfall.

    There's a reason the closer you get to the coast the fewer and fewer farms you see.

  • daneejela
    daneejela Posts: 461 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I actually think of it as a little broader.
    ..

    It's really complicated, in some cases, because real-world actions all have side effects, so many things are profoundly interconnected these days, and one gets into trying to assess comparative harm. Since much of the readily-available information is going to come from advocacy organizations on one side or another, it can be difficult for a non-expert to sort out what really is more ethical, or at least less unethical: Eating plant-based foods that require clearing forest land, and transport from far-away places, maybe exploited labor; or meat that's produced locally and with transported inputs? Efficent factory-style operations that help more humans, and economically less advantaged humans, to get better nutrition? Lots of dimensions.

    Like I said, I think nice people do what they can, and do the best they can with it. It's hard to discuss, without getting into quasi-religious arguments about it, IMO.

    This is one of the reasons why I have wanted this thread not to become another vegan vs not vegan debate, but to start a discussion and investigate what we all can do to make things, not perfect, but a bit better.

    Many people have disagreed with my opening post, which I find surprising since it's really not about doing this or that, but to try to see what each of us, in its own ethical principles, can make to live a bit more compassionate life.

    I agree that reality is never simple. I gave a wool example of how a good intention can lead to a very doubtable result. That's why I would be happy to share what I do know and to learn what I don't know about food production.
  • daneejela
    daneejela Posts: 461 Member
    edited January 2020
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    I guess my question would be "Is something morally appropriate just because it's natural?"

    I think we (speaking generally) tend to elide a lot of useful moral conversations by accepting a behavior just because it is "natural" (or dismissing one just because it is "unnatural"). Sometimes it turns into a way of saying "We're okay to do this because it's the way we've always done it."

    Fair question...I would say no - just because it's natural or just because it's the way we've always done it doesn't prove anything, but that it's able to survive the test of time.

    But, I think it's fair also to question and reason things we do for the first time...I think that you'd agree that only because something is new or high tech doesn't mean that it's good or morally appropriate per se?

    Also, please note, that I don't think we should ditch technology and go live paleo life. I devoted my professional life to technology and I do believe that it has its place and usage, but it's only a tool.
    A tool that can be used for example to lower costs and secure animals living some decent semi-free life or a tool to put 10 chicken into a square meter, isolated from the land, sun or outside air.

    What is ethical food consumption for you personally? Do you see anything we can do to be more ethical in your own ethical principles?
  • lilann1961
    lilann1961 Posts: 131 Member
    edited January 2020
    This is probably my most favorite debate topic thus far and I like to think my ramble supports the middle group. Those who acknowledge the need for change and do their part. My family and I try to lessen our impact on the environment through our shopping, eating and living habits. I like to think that one family does make a small difference, but it will take a global effort to turn things around. I am not vegan or vegetarian and I see the arguments daily on the fine line between what one person feels is ethical vs another. I respect their decisions and their views behind them, but I don't believe that is the only way, as each decision has an impact. For every meat animal that is spared or not born, there are bees pollinating the plants that replace that protein, etc and we are all aware of the honeybee decline (this is just one example). We need to learn on a global scale to work with nature, rather than against it (think herbicides, pesticides, biodiversity, protecting ecosystems, etc).

    In my mind, these are examples of my "ethical" choices:
    I go meatless once a week. I have researched the environmental (land) impact of raising meat animals, as well as the factory farms. KNOW YOUR FARMER. Support them. It is a hard, demanding job/life. I respect all they sacrifice.
    I reuse, recycle and terracycle everything possible.
    I grow a garden and compost. My yard has untouched, native areas that bring in wildlife. Biodiversity in your own little ecosystem WILL maintain a healthier, more robust output. I don't use herbicides or pesticides and maintain a chemical free property (my neighbors do not, and I do worry of the carryover).
    I belong to an organic CSA (community supported agriculture) - this is a local farm that has pickup sites across the city. I buy a share for the growing season and, in turn, get weekly boxes of the bounty.
    I know my farmers. I know where most of my meat comes from, where and how the animals are raised, when my CSA veggies and fruits were picked (and who grew and picked them). I believe even though it is a short life, it deserves respect and a full life before it is processed.
    I keep my own hens (four total) for eggs. No roos (even if I did, no incubator here...silkies make the best mamas) They free range in my yard (supervised - predators need to eat too), fertilize my compost, eat my scraps and keep the bugs down. If I had more space (and was not in suburbia), I would have other livestock, including bees.
    Supporting local for supplies (soap, toiletries) and food to cut down on transport/shipping and support my community.

    Just think, if everyone did something on a "small" scale, it would limit the need for the big scale operations and hopefully drive change on how they are managed.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm just adding my take on the overall discussion, somewhat in context of your comments. Please don't take it as criticism, because it isn't. Given some of what you said, I think we agree to a decent extent, so maybe take this as an amplification on your next to last paragraph.

    I think it matters what scope of view one puts on these things.

    Yes, it's possible to raise meat on land that's less useful for other purposes, and choices about which forms of meat to raise will influence which land can be used. Typically (generalization!), if more marginal land is used, it's going to take larger amounts of marginal land (vs. rich land) to get a similar magnitude of output. Backing up to a global view, does that scale?

    We have an issue now, of a huge global population, some of whom are still severely undernourished/hungry, sometimes even starving. (A good bit of this has political rather than environmental causes, but that's a whole other discussion. Still, it's relevant.)

    So far, we (the population of the world at large) are mostly unwilling to take the kinds of actions that would greatly rein in population growth, let alone reduce population (which latter would have serious economic side effects of its own, I suspect). We don't even do the more minimal things very well, that would help people who want to limit birth rates, do so effectively (like make safe and easy birth control ubiquitously and cheaply available.) So, lots of people.

    Lots of people need lots of food. In this context, strategies like industrial production and technology (GMOs, chemical adjuncts, etc.) are increasingly used, and possibly actually needed, for currently required scale.

    It's possible for us, as mostly kind of rich (in global terms) mostly first-worlders, to make choices to (say) eat less meat, or eat more goats/sheep that can live on marginal land? Sure. Might that be more ethical? Maybe.

    But does that scale? Can we feed everyone? And what about adjunct implications: Monitoring, protecting, then rounding up a bunch of steers in a smaller, richer-land pasture/feedlot situation (or milking cows in a huge automated milking facility) is somewhat efficient, and we can use relatively efficient transportation methods to move them to slaughterhouses, and meat to cities.

    How does that compare, in terms of environmental impact, to potentially-larger distances involved in managing and transporting the sheep/goats that are raised more spread out, on more marginal land? What, if anything, are the impacts on things like water quality, if larger areas of wild land are disturbed by sheep/goat production?

    Further, let's assume we want to keep other aspects of our first-world-ish lives going. We want the quite affordable clothing, and our tech devices, and air-conditioning/central heating, and so forth. What do the people who make those things possible eat? Where does it come from? What are their working conditions? Can they afford to pay a premium for kindly-raised meat?

    I'd say the same kinds of things about "have a home garden for veggies". I agree that that's a good thing to do. But small-holding and (semi-)subsistence farming also don't scale, if we want our modern conveniences, and maybe even want less-well-off populations get more modern conveniences, too. There isn't enough land for everyone to have a big yard, let alone acreage, that's in places with the right weather, and that just economically works, as a system. We need dense cities and high rise apartments, to a certain extent (and concentrating populations reduces certain environmental impacts, like those of transportation, though it does increase others.)

    I'm probably overthinking it - I usually am - but this stuff just seems really frickin' complicated, to me, as a question of applied ethics.

    I don't feel like we can ethically force other people all over the world to stop having offspring.

    I don't feel like we can ethically do anything other than our best to help see that those people have adequate nutirition (and other basics of tolerable life).

    I don't want to give up my cushy, rich and happy life any more than most other first-worlders do.

    I'm skeptical about theoretically ethical solutions for me and my immediate situation, that don't seem to scale. Frankly, it feels a little boutique-y, to me. Not that I'm saying all of them are not worth doing, for individuals who can afford them, not at all.

    I try to do what I can, but IMO this stuff is complicated, and IMO there's no individual way for each of us to remediate all of our global impacts. I just try to do the best I can, with my simplistic brain, my selfish desires, my daily habits.

    If it's practical to grow a garden, stop eating meat, hunt that deer, keep chickens, milk your own cow, that's great. It isn't practical for everyone, and it mostly doesn't scale. (That's how I got to the idea in my previous post: Do the things that are easy for me, at least for starters, to mitigate my global harm. And use some of my modest discretionary income to support efforts to fix some of the global problems at scale.)

    TL;DR: Best attempts at ethics on the individual scale might not automatically yield ethical outcomes on the global scale. It's complicated.
  • daneejela
    daneejela Posts: 461 Member
    @AnnPT77

    I love when people are not oversimplifying things and instead think in-depth...but at the same time, I feel like there is a risk of ending in a foggy relativism where everything is the same. It's not.

    I don't think we know and can fix all the word's problems. But, we can do certain things. Small changes like this one:
    Safari_Gal_ wrote: »

    I also believe in using the whole animal - I’ll buy various cuts or offal and use that in recipes..

    @liftingbro
    It can be that the environmental movements have a political agenda, but that does not change the fact that some animals are raised with more compassion and some are raised with much less. In my little village, I've witnessed both. And the reason why one farm chose one approach over another was usually just in motivation and "trend".

Categories